New York legislation would ban anonymous online speech

Sites would have to remove such comments unless posters agree to attach names.

Did you hear the one about New York state lawmakers who forgot about the First Amendment in the name of combating cyberbullying and “baseless political attacks?"

Proposed legislation in both chambers would require New York-based websites, such as blogs and newspapers, to “remove any comments posted on his or her website by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post.”

No votes on the measures have been taken. But unless the First Amendment is repealed, they stand no chance of surviving any constitutional scrutiny even if they were approved.

Republican Assemblyman Jim Conte said the legislation would cut down on “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks” and “turns the spotlight on cyberbullies by forcing them to reveal their identity.”

Had the Internet been around in the late 1700s, perhaps the anonymously written Federalist Papers would have had to be taken down unless Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay revealed themselves.

“This statute would essentially destroy the ability to speak anonymously online on sites in New York,” said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology. He added that the legislation provides a “heckler’s veto to anybody who disagrees with or doesn’t like what an anonymous poster said.”

Sen. Thomas O’Mara, a Republican who is also sponsoring the measure, said it would “help lend some accountability to the Internet age.”

A cynic, however, might see an attempt by lawmakers to prop up Facebook’s falling stock price via an implicit endorsement of the Facebook model of identity on the Internet.

The Senate and Assembly measures, which are identical, cover messages on social networks, blogs, message boards, or “any other discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.”

The bills also demands those sites to have a contact number or e-mail address posted for “such removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted.”

Oddly, the bill has no identification requirement for those who request the takedown of anonymous content.

This is why people call Republicans hypocrites. Rail against the nanny state, but also, hey there's too much freedom, better regulate anonymous speech on the internet, because, you know - cyberbullying...but when net neutrality legislation is introduced, go into full freakout mode that the freedom of speech on the internet is in danger because of federal regulation.

This legistation is completely pointless. Cyber-bullying is the most idiotic thing I've heard of in a long time. I am not arguing that it exists or that it is real - but come on. People can choose to not be bothered by online comments. People can choose to take ANYTHING they encounter online witha grain of salt. People can choose to not visit a given Website. Most Forums and Blogs tend to have posting guidelines - report the frakking harrassment if you have a problem with someone.

If you are getting your panties in a twist over what someone else says about you online that is on you.

Quote:

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. - Eleanor Roosevelt

Quote:

“This statute would essentially destroy the ability to speak anonymously online on sites in New York,”

Does this cover Sites that are physically hosted in NY State OR Sites where the Owners are physically residing ? The bills do not seem to clarify that.

What if I live in Texas but I have a hosting plan w/ a company based in NY ? OR vice versa ? Which is it ?

Quote:

A cynic, however, might see an attempt by lawmakers to prop up Facebook’s falling stock price via an implicit endorsement of the Facebook model of identity on the Internet.

Um - folks if you haven't figured it out by now - you can in fact create fictitious FB User Names. Just don't go openly bragging about them everywhere.

This stuff pisses me off, not just because of how stupid it is but because it has no chance of going through, yet they waste tax dollars either trying to get this through, and if it does more money getting it turned over. It is a blatant waste of tax payer dollars.

In a way, I would love it; leftist posters would get rightist posters erased and vice vera and we would be left with nothing. I'd love to get rid of the obnoxious Christian nuts who complain about everything.

I suppose it would be unconstitutional to make our representatives pass a test on the application of the constitution in every day life before being allowed to run on the ballot, wouldn't it? I propose that instead if they vote for a bill that includes unconstitutional language and it is later struck down in court, that they are ineligible to run in the next election. I'm probably going to have a hard time getting that passed though...

Sen. Thomas O’Mara, a Republican who is also sponsoring the measure, said it would “help lend some accountability to the Internet age.”

Senator Thomas O'Mara,

Please learn your job's responsibilities and don't act a congressman.

Sincerely,Your MomA Concerned Citizen

---

It really annoys me that Senators can "sponsor bills" in the first place. There needs to be some form of stick involved when branches overstep the boundaries of their positions. Congress(wo)men propose the laws. Senators can do what they are supposed to do (which does not include bukkake-fying American checks and balances system).

Yeah. My name is John Smith, just like every other poster on sites based in NY.

Maybe if politicians had to pay out of their own pockets for the defense of legislation which will obviously never pass a court challenge on constitutionality (as well as pay the court costs and any remuneration for those challenging the law), we'd see less of this shit.

A cynic, however, might see an attempt by lawmakers to prop up Facebook’s falling stock price via an implicit endorsement of the Facebook model of identity on the Internet.

Um - folks if you haven't figured it out by now - you can in fact create fictitious FB User Names. Just don't go openly bragging about them everywhere.

I don't actually "use" FB, but occasionally I need to go there or use a FB login for something, so every time I just create a new one, unless I can remember my last name and PW. I have never used my real name on anything publicly posted on the net since it's inception.

undervillain wrote:

Is New York trolling us? Even for a politician, this seems like a pretty stupid idea.

:0 <---- my shocked face.The article did say they were republicans, so kinda par for the course. I'm shocked they let these guys have shoelaces. Seems rather irresponsible.

It is frustrating to see the kind of people that can represent us, (we really need to change this).They're beyond dumb and clueless. If they truly understood even part of how online communication can work, they would see how easy it can be to create fake information and post anything you want.

But more importantly is these idiots trying to hinder our freedom of speech. You don't mess with that, period.This is so asinine I could spend pages writing about it, but I'm tired of dealing with idiots today.

Sen. Thomas O’Mara, a Republican who is also sponsoring the measure, said it would “help lend some accountability to the Internet age.”

Senator Thomas O'Mara,

Please learn your job's responsibilities and don't act a congressman.

Sincerely,Your MomA Concerned Citizen

---

It really annoys me that Senators can "sponsor bills" in the first place. There needs to be some form of stick involved when branches overstep the boundaries of their positions. Congress(wo)men propose the laws. Senators can do what they are supposed to do (which does not include bukkake-fying American checks and balances system).

I'm no expert at law, but doesn't the first amendment only apply to the federal government? The limiting speech is the first sentence on the plaque pictured.

"CONGRESS shall make no law..."

It says nothing of the states. Either way, I don't support the New York legislation.

Logged on to say pretty much exactly this. Regardless, it is a frightening bit of proposed legislation.

Edit: changing a "frightening law" to "a frightening bit of proposed legislation" since it is not yet law.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment applies to state and local governments as well starting in Gitlow v. New York. The argument uses the due process clause from the Fourteenth Amendment, which prevents the states from from depriving anyone of their liberties without due process, and the (probably true) claim that free speech and press are important civil liberties.

I agree that this is a bad idea. Also, IANAL, however, the First Amendment protects your freedom to speak, not your anonymity while doing so. I understand that judges have opined that reducing anonymity has the effect of curtailing speech however all the screeching that this tramples the first amendment strikes me as disingenuous.

I'm no expert at law, but doesn't the first amendment only apply to the federal government? The limiting speech is the first sentence on the plaque pictured.

Logged on to say pretty much exactly this.

You need to read past the original Bill of Rights, or more specifically read up on the legal doctrine of Incorporation using the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS has interpreted the Due Process Clause as supporting applying the various amendments to the states. That's pretty thoroughly established at this point (IIRC the first case of Incorporation was in the 1890s), not sure how you guys keep missing it (because I see comments like yours a LOT).

Anyone else see the deep irony (or hypocrisy I guess) in comparing this bill to the various ways individuals and corporations can anonymously give millions of dollars to super-pacs? "Free"-speech indeed.

Sen. Thomas O’Mara, a Republican who is also sponsoring the measure, said it would “help lend some accountability to the Internet age.”

Senator Thomas O'Mara,

Please learn your job's responsibilities and don't act a congressman.

Sincerely,Your MomA Concerned Citizen

---

It really annoys me that Senators can "sponsor bills" in the first place. There needs to be some form of stick involved when branches overstep the boundaries of their positions. Congress(wo)men propose the laws. Senators can do what they are supposed to do (which does not include bukkake-fying American checks and balances system).

What exactly do you think the Senate is?

(Hint: It's a part of congress.)

Hope this helps you in the future.

I'm glad someone said this because I was starting to think that if a Senator was not a member of the state legislature then New York had some really crazy legislative system set up...

I suppose there are certain benefits to the US having low voter turnout (too bad you don't have to know anything about the structure of the government to vote ;D )

The original proposal is rather interesting. It's not a blanket action to remove all anonymous comments, but anonymous comments are only to be removed when a request is made to the site owner on which the comment is posted. I wonder if the same strict requirements of identification can be applied to the people making the requests for removal. Maybe the site owners can put up a list of comments that were removed along with the identity of the person requesting the removal - you'd be allowed to show the original comment in this case because the comment has been transformed from a comment to an article, to being part of an article in it's own right.

I suppose there are certain benefits to the US having low voter turnout (too bad you don't have to know anything about the structure of the government to vote ;D )

Harrowing, isn't it? That's why I can't understand anyone wanting to further cut education in America - honestly, we need all the help we can get.

Again, that would be the republicans. Getting the uneducated to remain ignorant of the issues (not to mention the truth) and then go vote anyway, against their own self interests, is how republicans get elected in the first place.

In a way, I would love it; leftist posters would get rightist posters erased and vice vera and we would be left with nothing. I'd love to get rid of the obnoxious Christian nuts who complain about everything.

What I'd really love to get rid of are the people _claiming_ to be religious nuts or vice versa. There's a news site that seems to think the right time to post "religion" articles is Sunday morning. The number of "Evangelical Christians" who pop up commenting right away is pretty eye opening.

It's almost as if they're not in church for 3-4 hours on a Sunday morning like practically every evangelical I know.

ANYWAY:I personally see absolutely no relevance to the First Amendment and anonymity. I'm not saying anonymity is a bad idea, just that I don't see how you defend it using the 1st. I've got mixed feelings on anonymity because I've seen too many obvious "impersonation" attempts like I just described which makes me wonder about the real ones. On the other hand, given the number of stalking cases out there, I can't imagine what would happen if "real" names were used on public boards.

I'm no expert at law, but doesn't the first amendment only apply to the federal government? The limiting speech is the first sentence on the plaque pictured.

Logged on to say pretty much exactly this.

You need to read past the original Bill of Rights, or more specifically read up on the legal doctrine of Incorporation using the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS has interpreted the Due Process Clause as supporting applying the various amendments to the states. That's pretty thoroughly established at this point (IIRC the first case of Incorporation was in the 1890s), not sure how you guys keep missing it (because I see comments like yours a LOT).